I had watched it at home, where I can eat cheetos in my underwear where it's safe to do so. In private. And I found myself being disappointed in it. I actually became annoyed at the 2 1/2 hours of entertainment. I wanted more preachiness.
I wanted confirmation.
I wasn't alone in that. Those I've spoken to that were more of a political bent, or simply concerned with our society, voiced the same sort of concerns. Others thought it was fine, either liked it or didn't for varying reasons. Some even considered it another Woodstock of sorts.
I got to thinking (it happens now and then) about which viewpoint, if any, would be more correct. Then I thought even further. What should we have expected? Did we even have any right to expect anything?
I'll leave with this for now. Comments?
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Shooting Children For Kicks.
Taken from TBO...
"LARGO - Gun owners have something to learn from two shootings yesterday in which children were wounded by guns in the presence of the adults taking care of them, law enforcement officials say.
One man was arrested after a toddler in his care was wounded with his shotgun, while another man, in a separate incident, was not arrested after an 8-year-boy in his care was wounded with a handgun, according to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office."
Obviously it's bad, what with the children 'n all.
It goes on to explain that the first man, John Gallagher, had unloaded his shotgun (doesn't explain if he had been cleaning it or some-such) and, thinking it was empty, had pointed at the two year old girl and pulled the trigger. The shotgun wasn't empty and he ended up blasting the tike. The article said the wound wasn't life threatening but it either failed to further explain Gallagher's thinking or there just wasn't anything to write regarding that.
I know quite a few people like that.
The second man was babysitting three brothers, eight and twin six year olds. He took a .38 revolver and a .45 pistol. He unloaded the .38 and gave it to the boys to look at. He then, for whatever reason, took it back, reloaded it, placed it in its holster and then placed it upon a dresser away from them. While he was showing the boys the unloaded .45 one of the twins got a hold of the .38 and shot his 8 year old brother in the leg. This man wasn't arrested as it was deemed purely an accident.
So besides the obvious, that finally the Twin Conspiracy has come to light and their plans to take over the world one gunshot at a time, these two happenings are stirring more anti-gun sentiments.
Why?
I would hope they would stir up some anti-stupid sentiments. But, this being Florida...
Seriously, does anyone else see the above instances as more proof for needing more stringent gun laws or a need to improve education, intelligence and common sense?
"LARGO - Gun owners have something to learn from two shootings yesterday in which children were wounded by guns in the presence of the adults taking care of them, law enforcement officials say.
One man was arrested after a toddler in his care was wounded with his shotgun, while another man, in a separate incident, was not arrested after an 8-year-boy in his care was wounded with a handgun, according to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office."
Obviously it's bad, what with the children 'n all.
It goes on to explain that the first man, John Gallagher, had unloaded his shotgun (doesn't explain if he had been cleaning it or some-such) and, thinking it was empty, had pointed at the two year old girl and pulled the trigger. The shotgun wasn't empty and he ended up blasting the tike. The article said the wound wasn't life threatening but it either failed to further explain Gallagher's thinking or there just wasn't anything to write regarding that.
I know quite a few people like that.
The second man was babysitting three brothers, eight and twin six year olds. He took a .38 revolver and a .45 pistol. He unloaded the .38 and gave it to the boys to look at. He then, for whatever reason, took it back, reloaded it, placed it in its holster and then placed it upon a dresser away from them. While he was showing the boys the unloaded .45 one of the twins got a hold of the .38 and shot his 8 year old brother in the leg. This man wasn't arrested as it was deemed purely an accident.
So besides the obvious, that finally the Twin Conspiracy has come to light and their plans to take over the world one gunshot at a time, these two happenings are stirring more anti-gun sentiments.
Why?
I would hope they would stir up some anti-stupid sentiments. But, this being Florida...
Seriously, does anyone else see the above instances as more proof for needing more stringent gun laws or a need to improve education, intelligence and common sense?
Friday, October 29, 2010
America's Future in Space.
I'm still of two minds about the whole loss of the shuttles and the subsequent pause of manned flight for 5-10 years (estimate).
On one hand, I'm absolutely astounded that we, Americans, haven't furnished NASA with the much needed money to help build projects and such and to not just continue but further advance manned space flight.
Granted we'll be hitching rides on the Russian Soyuz vehicles but there's the whole reliability issue. While NASA has paid for certain contracts there is no guarantee politics won't get in the way.
Also I'm a huge nerd and I just want us to have a Starfleet, ya know?
Then I got to thinking about how we'd come about our vasty fleets in the stars.
Currently the American government does not produce it's own vehicles, whether they be air or land. Our entire military is completely dependent on civilian companies. And because of the resultant competition and generally unrestrained R&D atmosphere we have the most technologically adept, advanced and equipped military in the world.
Even with my patriotism getting in the way I just can't imagine the government doing that on its own. Sure it more or less has NASA and the shuttles, etc., but most experts also love to talk about how hidebound and linear much of NASA is.
Obviously I'm discussing the future militarization of space and I would hope that nobody would pretend to be shocked by that. It's going to happen. My belief is that public access to space would be furthered as a result of the defense expenditures into space R&D development by civilian companies.
And does anyone happen to have one million dollars I could have? I wanna purchase this ticket, see.....
On one hand, I'm absolutely astounded that we, Americans, haven't furnished NASA with the much needed money to help build projects and such and to not just continue but further advance manned space flight.
Granted we'll be hitching rides on the Russian Soyuz vehicles but there's the whole reliability issue. While NASA has paid for certain contracts there is no guarantee politics won't get in the way.
Also I'm a huge nerd and I just want us to have a Starfleet, ya know?
Then I got to thinking about how we'd come about our vasty fleets in the stars.
Currently the American government does not produce it's own vehicles, whether they be air or land. Our entire military is completely dependent on civilian companies. And because of the resultant competition and generally unrestrained R&D atmosphere we have the most technologically adept, advanced and equipped military in the world.
Even with my patriotism getting in the way I just can't imagine the government doing that on its own. Sure it more or less has NASA and the shuttles, etc., but most experts also love to talk about how hidebound and linear much of NASA is.
Obviously I'm discussing the future militarization of space and I would hope that nobody would pretend to be shocked by that. It's going to happen. My belief is that public access to space would be furthered as a result of the defense expenditures into space R&D development by civilian companies.
And does anyone happen to have one million dollars I could have? I wanna purchase this ticket, see.....
Monday, October 25, 2010
Opinion Nation
This nation and its people would be a better place but for one thing, that every individual has a right to their opinion. This is an insidious belief that is as pervasive as it is detrimental.
It is the right of the individual, as given and protected by government, to have an opinion. It is not the right to an opinion. There is a very fundamental difference between the two.
The prior, the right to have an opinion, is the simple idea that the individual shall not be forced into any one idea nor belief. That the individual has the freedom to pursue their own opinion. That last is very important, "...the freedom to pursue their own opinion.".
What is more commonly seen, however, are individuals that have their own opinions but failed to pursue them. Their opinions are rarely grounded in fact but in what they want to be true or what they're afraid is true. The common defense when questioned is usually something along the lines of, "This is America and I have a right to my opinion!".
As if the very fact of their holding an opinion is all the justification required for its existence.
It is not.
It is the right of the individual, as given and protected by government, to have an opinion. It is not the right to an opinion. There is a very fundamental difference between the two.
The prior, the right to have an opinion, is the simple idea that the individual shall not be forced into any one idea nor belief. That the individual has the freedom to pursue their own opinion. That last is very important, "...the freedom to pursue their own opinion.".
What is more commonly seen, however, are individuals that have their own opinions but failed to pursue them. Their opinions are rarely grounded in fact but in what they want to be true or what they're afraid is true. The common defense when questioned is usually something along the lines of, "This is America and I have a right to my opinion!".
As if the very fact of their holding an opinion is all the justification required for its existence.
It is not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)